Inheritance tax.

[diy_fun_uk]

At the risk of "doing a Gassy", then, justifying your opposition to IHT via

doesn't square with

It seems then that a lot of what side of the debate we all fall on is our personal morality and ethics.

My points square perfectly fine.

I start with £0.

I work, save and invest sensibly over decades, resulting in £10,000,000 when I peg it. This pot of money wouldn't have existed without my endeavours (my first original point you quoted.)

I then leave it to my children. They don't lift a finger to work, they live off the money I left them.

They peg it and leave their remaining money to their kids. They also don't lift a finger to work and so on. (my second original point you quoted.)

How do these things not 'square'?

And of course personal morals and ethics come into it, don't they with most things where individual opinions/views are sought?

 

[Murdochcat]

My points square perfectly fine.

I start with £0.

I work, save and invest sensibly over decades, resulting in £10,000,000 when I peg it. This pot of money wouldn't have existed without my endeavours (my first original point you quoted.)

I then leave it to my children. They don't lift a finger to work, they live off the money I left them.

They peg it and leave their remaining money to their kids. They also don't lift a finger to work and so on. (my second original point you quoted.)

How do these things not 'square'?

And of course personal morals and ethics come into it, don't they with most things where individual opinions/views are sought?

If your assets were really £10 million your IFA would have advised legal ways to protect the money from the tax man

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Everyone can always make a case for why certain things shouldn't be taxed. People could argue that there shouldn't be income tax, because why shouldn't somebody keep every penny they have worked hard for.

There are various arguments that handing down generational wealth is bad for the country.

Income tax is a sensible tax, although the % levied is always a talking point.

CGT/IHT fall into the pernicious bracket imo. I'm not saying others are wrong for not agreeing with me

 

[diy_fun_uk]

If your assets were really £10 million your IFA would have advised legal ways to protect the money from the tax man

My point is, it shouldn't need protecting from in this case IHT. The tax itself simply shouldn't exist.

 

[Brigadier]

How do these things not 'square'?

Because you justified your position (of disagreeing with IHT) on the basis that

It's money and/or value that only exists through my previous endeavour

ergo, accumulated through "work".

Which doesn't "square" with your kids avoiding tax while doing nothing for their money.

 

[Koolpc]

So deliberate deprivation of assets. This can be investigated and clawed back if the person needs care in later life and IIRC there are tax implications too if the giver still lives in the property after giving it away

Who gives a monkeys!!

Anyone can give their property to a relative.....

 

[motorbiking]

What about passive income - should that be taxed more?

 

[diy_fun_uk]

ergo, accumulated through "work".

Which doesn't "square" with your kids avoiding tax while doing nothing for their money.

Rubbish.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

What about passive income - should that be taxed more?

YES

How dare anyone generate wealth through passive income!

Tax it at 99%!

 

[Brigadier]

Rubbish.

" I've worked for it, which is why it shouldn't be taxed."

Which logically leads to

"If I haven't worked for it, it should be taxed."

Otherwise, you could have just said that you don't believe it should be taxed at all.

 

[motorbiking]

" I've worked for it, which is why it shouldn't be taxed."

Which logically leads to

"If I haven't worked for it, it should be taxed."

Otherwise, you could have just said that you don't believe it should be taxed at all.

Person A earns money, pays tax and acquires an asset - he gives it to person B - there is no tax to pay
Person C earns money, pays tax and acquires an asset - he gives it to person D upon his death - there is tax to pay

Doesn't sound too logical to me. Person B should pay tax or person D should not. Neither have "earned" the asset.

 

[Murdochcat]

So if IHT was abolished it would add about 1.5% to the income tax you pay so 22.5% , 41.5% or 46.5%

So would YOU rather pay more tax along with all of us OR let the people who don’t protect their wealth pay IHT?

 

[diy_fun_uk]

" I've worked for it, which is why it shouldn't be taxed."

Which logically leads to

"If I haven't worked for it, it should be taxed."

Otherwise, you could have just said that you don't believe it should be taxed at all.

It doesn't logically lead to that at all.

Let's leave it there. We're never going to agree

 

[Brigadier]

Doesn't sound too logical to me.

It's tax; it is meant to be illogical (confusing, impenetrable)

 

[JohnD]

A friend of mine is giving her 19 year old her house now. Putting it in her name etc....she will still live there though

A gift with reservation does not escape inheritance tax.